The Supreme Court dissolved a marriage lasting just 65 days, ending a 13-year separation marked by over 40 litigations, citing irretrievable breakdown. Exercising Article 142 powers, the court held bitterness had reached a point where reconciliation was impossible finally.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court annulled a marriage that lasted merely 65 days, granting a divorce to a couple who had been living separately for over 13 years and engaged in more than 40 legal disputes against one another. The court noted that the relationship had irretrievably broken down and concluded that the parties “may not have been made for each other.”
A bench composed of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan utilized its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to resolve the long standing matrimonial conflict, stating that the bitterness between the couple had escalated to a level where reconciliation was no longer feasible.
The bench remarked,
“We find this to be a clear case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage where the parties do not intend to live together and cohabitate. Rather they may not be able to reconcile seeing the level of bitterness generated with the passage of time,”
Factual Background of the Case
The couple married on January 28, 2012, but the wife left the marital home within 65 days, citing cruelty from the husband and his family. Since then, they had lived apart for over a decade, embroiled in constant litigation across various courts in Delhi, Allahabad, Ghaziabad, and Lucknow.
The wife approached the Supreme Court to dissolve the marriage under Article 142, without seeking alimony, and requested the cancellation of the numerous criminal and civil cases pending between them. The court confirmed the status of these cases directly with the involved courts before issuing its order.
The husband, who represented himself, vehemently opposed the divorce request, claiming the wife had “spoiled his life” and had distorted facts in court. He argued that he did not agree to the divorce and had filed claims of perjury against her.
Observation Of the Court:
The bench dismissed his objections, stating that consent was not the determining factor when the marriage had evidently collapsed beyond repair.
The court explained,
“They may not have been made for each other. Some time is taken by young couples to understand each other and adjust accordingly… It may be impossible now to put the clock back and live together after forgetting the bitterness, which has been created in the last more than a decade,”
Expressing concern over the misuse of the judicial system in marital disputes, the bench emphasized that courts should not serve as battlegrounds for “warring couples” looking to settle personal grievances. It cautioned that extended criminal litigation often extinguishes any remaining chance of reconciliation.
Highlighting that incompatibility should be resolved through early dispute resolution mechanisms, the bench stated,
“Warring couples cannot be allowed to settle their scores by treating courts as their battlefield and choke the system,”
The ruling also included extensive remarks on the surge in matrimonial litigation and the roles of lawyers, courts, and families in exacerbating conflicts. The bench pointed out the growing tendency to gather, and sometimes fabricate, evidence, warning that false accusations have become prevalent, especially in the era of artificial intelligence.
Emphasizing mediation as a vital tool, the court asserted that earnest efforts should be made at the pre-litigation stage to resolve marital conflicts, even when issues like maintenance or domestic violence lead parties to court or police authorities.
The bench observed,
“Even when a complaint is sought to be registered with the police of a simple matrimonial dispute, the first and foremost effort has to be for reconciliation… This sometimes becomes a point of no return, especially when any of the parties is arrested, may it be even for a day,”
Final Order of the Court:
Granting the wife’s request, the court annulled the marriage and ordered the disposal of all pending cases arising from the matrimonial dispute, except for certain applications alleging perjury, which must be resolved on their merits to safeguard “pollution of the stream of justice“
The court also prohibited both parties from initiating any further litigation regarding their marital issues and imposed costs of Rs 10,000 each on them, to be paid to the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, noting that both had contributed to the drawn-out legal battles.